Who is disagree that children born in the US to citizen parents are not natural born citizens?
No one that I know of and that is what this is talking about. “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen .”
This does NOT say that ONLY children born in the USA of citizen parents are natural born citizens.
It says simply that those born in the US to citizen parents are natural born citizens. A point with which everyone agrees, and also a point that is moot to this discussion.
We are discussing those born overseas to US citizens.
About them the 1790, 1795, and current 1952 Naturalization law and State Department pam are all in agreement. They are citizens at birth.
As the relevant state department pam says: they are NOT considered naturalized. They are citizens at birth.
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by Naturalization
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act.
Naturalized means “made by decree to be natural.”
If you’re made to be “natural”, then you already were “natural.”
So, then, natural means “by RIGHT.”
You could be a citizen “by right” based on location of birth (jus soli)
OR
You could be a citizen “by right” based on blood (jus sanquinis)
There are only 2 types of citizens:
(1) those made to be citizens
(2) those born already citizens
Please xzins, you have repeated this a number of times, and apparently not read the 1795 Act. I hope we write to inform those interested enough to read.
“The Naturalization Act of 1795 - An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;"
The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act, in its entirety. Here is law that replaced what was repealed:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.<.u>
This was the Act Mark Levin, from whom I have learned and continue to learn a great deal. Levin stated, when asked about his views on natural born citizenship, that it was not an issue he had studied. I can't know his motives, but he was absolutely wrong in citing the 1790 act, either regarding Cruz or McCain. This was the act cited by Larry Tribe with Ted Olson, in Resolution 511 in April 2008, as McCaskill, Leahy, Clinton and Obama provided talking points, a “resolution has no weight of law”, so no one would ask eligibility questions, Democrats having spent years demonstrating McCain's noncompliance. Tribe, like Levin, didn't bother to mention the 1795 Act. I have no doubt that Tribe knew the truth. I believe Levin has too much respect for the amendment process to flaunt the intent of our framers, and so will withhold guesses conjecture about why he is so in conflict with settled law.
The sentiment, that children of military citizens be ‘reputed’ (from Vattel) natural born citizens, is one with which I agree, and believe one that deserves an amendment. But Obama and McCaskill’s SB 2678, from Feb 2008, the “Children of Military Families Natural born Citizen Act” failed to pass. It could have led to an amendment.
Tennesee Nana makes an excellent point. Any who believe that Hillary, who knows the law, and whose party has two Obama Supreme Court appointees who have not recused themselves from the pretrial hearing where the court decides to hear or not, an Article II case. The Supreme Court is clearly politicized. If an election is close, I would be surprised if Hillary, or a surrogate, like her Philip Berg, didn't challenge anyone whose eligibility was not beyond doubt, as is Hillary's. When a Republican tried, Nathan Deal of Georgia, the response came from the House, which used the IRS to bring ethics charges after perusing Deal's unaudited income tax returns from long ago.
Eligibility was certainly questioned during the Woodrow Wilson election, and Breckenridge Long, later in FDR's State Department, wrote a lengthy brief in Chicago Legal News, Volume 49, explaining the never doubted John Jay, Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, Evans-Hughes definition, and why Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson's Republican Opponent, was ineligible - Hughes’ parents were British citizens.
Many questions were raised about Chester Arthur, who nominated Horace Gray for the Supreme Court. Arthur never produced a birth certificate and was not removed by the Senate, there not being sufficient proof. Arthur, as discovered in 2008 by Leo Donofrio, always had a Vermont birth certificate, but hid it, probably to distract from the a fact never suspected or raised, Arthur's father was a British citizen, naturalizing when Arthur was 14, making Arthur our only other ineligible president.
Please try to remember that The Constitution does not, by design, contain definitions. If definitions in the Constitution were the criterion for whether we decide to respect its articles, the Constitution would be meaningless, which is probably the objective of many so-called progressives. Only one term is defined in the Constitution, which term I'll leave as an exercise.